Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Scope of Judicial Interference under Section 11(6) – Appellant suffered an arbitral award in dispute with third-party contractor – Based on contract clause shifting liability for award to respondent, appellant sought arbitration – High Court rejected application holding that liability arises only upon payment of award and cause of action had not arisen – Supreme Court held that existence of arbitration agreement was undisputed – Whether claim is arbitrable or cause of action has arisen is matter for arbitral tribunal to decide – Reiterated limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) as clarified in Office for Alternative Architecture and In Re: Interplay – Held: High Court erred in refusing to refer dispute to arbitration – Appeal allowed – Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya (Retd. C.J., Gujarat High Court) appointed as sole Arbitrator [Paras 8–14].

Public Interest Litigation – Unauthorized Constructions – Right of Hearing – High Court, in a PIL, directed closure of 172 civil suits and removal of unauthorized constructions in Gurugram, citing violations of planning norms – Appellants (landowners/occupiers) were not parties to the writ petition – Supreme Court held: Directions issued without impleading affected parties and affording hearing violate principles of natural justice – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 2, 6, 9]

Urban Development – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Section 15 of HDRUA Act – High Court directed closure of pending civil suits citing bar on jurisdiction under Section 15 – Held: Civil court jurisdiction cannot be conclusively ousted without adjudication – Affected persons entitled to be heard before such directions are passed [Paras 5, 6, 9]

Administrative Law – Due Process – Mandamus issued by High Court for demolition/removal of constructions – Held: Authorities must afford opportunity to affected owners/occupiers before enforcing such actions – Determination of illegality must follow due process [Paras 8–10]

Procedural Directions – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s order dated 13.02.2025 set aside – Writ Petitions (CWP Nos. 1528 and 2106 of 2021) restored – Appellants allowed to file appropriate applications within 2 weeks – High Court to re-decide the matter after hearing all affected parties, preferably within 6 months – State directed to give wide publicity to facilitate impleadment of affected persons [Paras 10–12]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court order set aside – Writ Petitions restored for fresh adjudication after affording hearing to all affected persons – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of abetment to suicide against the appellant who was in a relationship with the deceased and allegedly refused to marry her – FIR filed by deceased’s mother alleged mental and physical exploitation and instigation by the appellant – Supplementary statement introduced additional claims not present in the original FIR – Held: No direct or proximate act of instigation proved – Mere refusal to marry or breakdown in relationship, even if emotionally distressing, does not amount to abetment – FIR quashed – Continuation of trial would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 5, 8, l2, l5, l8, l9, 20, 2l].

FIR – Supplementary Statement – Evidentiary Value – FIR lodged by mother of deceased mentioned emotional betrayal due to refusal of marriage – Two days later, supplementary statement added claims of physical and mental exploitation, phone conversations, and CD evidence – Court noted these were improvements upon initial version made after consulting others and were not spontaneous – Held: Such improvements create doubt and cannot solely be relied upon to prosecute for abetment of suicide [Paras 5, 9].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – No instigation or direct act by accused proved – Deceased allegedly took her life after emotional distress due to accused's refusal to marry her – Held: To constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear act of instigation or active aiding – Mere refusal to marry, even if hurtful, does not fulfill the legal requirement – Cited precedents including S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh to clarify scope of ‘instigation’ [Paras l5–l8].

Mens Rea – Lack of Intent to Instigate Suicide – Court found that although appellant had a close relationship with the deceased and may have backed out under family pressure, there was no evidence of intention to provoke suicide – Mental process required for abetment (mens rea) absent – No alarming or direct encouragement to commit suicide established [Paras ll, l2, l8].

Judicial Approach – Emotional Elements vs. Legal Principles – Court observed that while emotional distress and tragedy of young life lost is acknowledged, legal principles must guide the decision – Held: Law does not punish failed relationships or heartbreak unless elements of a cognizable offence are clearly made out [Para l8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 273/20l6 dated 07.ll.20l6 and entire criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 728/20l8 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar quashed – Trial would be an empty formality and continuation would amount to travesty of justice [Paras l9–2l].

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Proof of Charges – TTE dismissed for alleged demand of illegal gratification and possession of excess cash – Primary complainant not examined and his written statement relied upon without opportunity for cross-examination – Other complainants did not support prosecution version – Held: Non-examination of key witness and contradictions in other testimonies vitiate findings – Enquiry Officer’s report perverse and unsustainable – CAT rightly set aside dismissal – High Court erred in reversing CAT [Paras 17.1, 18]

Departmental Proceedings – Evidence – Reliance on Unexamined Witness – Placing reliance on written complaint of unexamined person constitutes denial of fair hearing – Finding based on such evidence is perverse – Violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 17.1, 18]

Possession of Excess Cash – No Rule fixing ceiling on cash carried by TTE – Amount deposited in Railway Sundry Accounts on same day – Circular relied on by department issued after date of incident – Charge unsustainable [Para 17.2]

Failure to Recover Fare Difference – Rs.18 difference allegedly not recovered – No receipt book produced and passenger not examined – Finding based solely on vigilance officer’s statement – Charge not proved [Para 17.3]

Forgery of Duty Card Pass – No handwriting expert opinion obtained – Enquiry Officer himself found charge unproved – No evidence to establish forgery – Charge fails [Para 17.4]

Judicial Review – CAT’s interference justified when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence mechanically to sustain dismissal – High Court’s reversal of CAT order unsustainable [Para 18]

Service Benefits – Employee deceased during litigation – Consequential monetary and pensionary benefits to be released to legal heirs within three months [Para 18-19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 21.09.2017 set aside – Order of CAT dated 21.03.2002 restoring reinstatement upheld – All consequential monetary and pensionary benefits directed to be released to legal heirs within three months.

Contempt of Court – Interim Orders – Effect of “Release” of Reserved Matter – Termination of Service during Subistence of Interim Protection – Appellant’s services were terminated on 10-06-2020 while an interim order dated 20-12-2018 restraining final orders in disciplinary proceedings was in operation and being extended – Mere “release” of the writ petition on 06-02-2019 did not extinguish the interim order – Held: Dismissal of contempt petition by High Court set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 2.8, 2.14–2.18, 5–6].

University Discipline – KGMU CPMS Audit and Enquiry – Procedural History – Multiple writ petitions (2018–2021) challenging preliminary enquiry, questionnaire, chargesheet, suspension, and termination – Interim stay of suspension on 05-12-2019 continued – Despite pendency, final termination order passed on 10-06-2020 forming the gravamen of contempt claim [Paras 2.3–2.6, 2.10–2.15].

Practice & Procedure – Remand – High Court requested to consider contempt afresh and, for effective adjudication, to take up connected matters together; pending applications disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 23-09-2024 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed and set aside – Contempt petition remitted for fresh consideration; connected matters may be heard together – Pending applications disposed of. [Paras 6–8].

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – S.12A – Urgent interim relief – IP infringement – Delay per se does not negate urgency where infringement is continuing – High Court orders rejecting plaint set aside – Suit restored to be decided on merits [Paras 20-26, 27-28]

Commercial Law – Pre-Institution Mediation – Section 12A – Meaning of “contemplates any urgent interim relief” – Test reiterated that courts examine plaint, pleadings and annexed documents to see if urgent interim relief is genuinely required from the standpoint of the plaintiff – Court is not to decide merits at this stage – Pro forma/anticipatory prayers to bypass mediation to be ignored [Paras 18-20]

Intellectual Property – Continuing Infringement – Urgency – Each act of manufacture/sale/offer for sale is a fresh wrong creating a recurring cause of action – Mere delay in filing suit does not legalise infringement nor defeat the right to injunction against a dishonest user – Urgency may be inherent where ongoing acts cause immediate and irreparable harm to goodwill, reputation and proprietary rights [Paras 22-23]

Public Interest – IP disputes implicate consumer confusion and market integrity – Preventing deception and confusion furnishes an additional element of immediacy for interim protection – Section 12A not intended to render a plaintiff remediless during ongoing infringement [Paras 16, 24]

Procedure – Section 12A v. Ongoing IP Infringement – Courts below erred by treating lapse of time as negating urgency and by evaluating entitlement to interim relief on merits rather than the plaintiff’s stand-point and material on record – Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-compliance with Section 12A set aside [Paras 25, 27-28]

Principles Culled Out – (i) Section 12A is mandatory; violation ordinarily renders institution defective – (ii) Exemption lies only where plaint and documents disclose a real need for urgent interim intervention – (iii) Look for immediacy of peril/irreparable harm/risk to rights/perishable subject-matter/time sensitivity – (iv) Sham/anticipatory prayers to skip mediation to be ignored – (v) Court is concerned with plausibility of urgency, not its eventual success [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders dated 28.08.2024 (Single Judge) and 13.11.2024 (Division Bench, HP High Court) set aside – Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 restored for decision on merits in accordance with law [Paras 27-28]

NDPS Act – Confiscation of Vehicle – Interim Release – Jurisdiction of Special Court – Rules of 2022 do not divest the Special Court of power to order interim custody of a seized conveyance – Subordinate legislation cannot override parent statute – Power under Sections 451 & 457 CrPC [497 & 503 BNSS] remains intact – High Court’s contrary view unsustainable [Paras 13, 22, 29-30]

NDPS Act – Sections 60(3) & 63 – Confiscation of Conveyance – Burden of proof on owner to show lack of knowledge or connivance – Confiscation can only follow judicial determination by Special Court after hearing claimant – Drug Disposal Committee cannot decide ownership or confiscation of vehicle – Violation of natural justice if deprived without hearing [Paras 19-22]

Subordinate Legislation – NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Rules merely procedural and supplemental – Cannot curtail substantive rights of owner or judicial power of Court – Administrative Committee cannot substitute judicial adjudication under NDPS Act [Paras 13, 15-17, 27-30]

Interim Custody – Vehicle Seized under NDPS Act – Where owner not arrayed as accused and prima facie shows bona fides and absence of knowledge, Special Court empowered to release vehicle on supurdagi – Principle from Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 32 applied – Case fits within fourth category in Bishwajit Dey

(contraband recovered from third party without owner’s connivance) [Paras 31-35]

Presumption – Owner’s Knowledge – Mere presence of contraband in transport vehicle not sufficient to presume complicity of owner where no material indicates knowledge or connivance – Bonafide transporter carrying lawful goods entitled to interim release [Paras 31-33, 35]

Principles of Natural Justice – Property rights of innocent owner protected – Confiscation entails deprivation of property and must follow judicial process with opportunity of hearing – Rules of 2022 cannot override this constitutional safeguard [Paras 22, 27, 29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Madras High Court dated 20.12.2024 set aside – Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315 directed to be released to appellant on supurdagi subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court – Interpretation of Rules of 2022 clarified – Special Court retains jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized conveyances [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing death of intervenor S by axe blow to the neck – Trial court sentenced him to 10 years’ RI – High Court reduced sentence to 8 years – Appellant sought further reduction on ground of young age (20 years) and absence of intention – Supreme Court held that deceased S was an innocent peacekeeper who suffered fatal injury without provocation – Act of appellant found not to be covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Sentence of 8 years not excessive in the circumstances – Held: Sentence imposed by High Court appropriate and does not warrant interference [Paras 8–10, 22–23, 27–28].

Sentencing – Proportionality – Deterrence – Supreme Court emphasized balancing judicial discretion with societal interests and victim’s rights – Reiterated principles from Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat – Undue sympathy and disproportionate leniency undermine faith in justice system – Sentence must reflect gravity of offence and protect social order – Held: No compelling reason to further reduce sentence in absence of mitigating circumstances [Paras 24–25, 27–28].

Premature Release – Remission – Appellant permitted to seek premature release under applicable State remission policy – Court noted that such statutory remedies remain open and independent of judicial sentence review [Paras 17, 30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentence of 8 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-II IPC upheld – Appellant entitled to seek premature release as per remission policy of State of Karnataka.

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Intra-group Licensing – Scope of Restraint – Suit filed by respondent sought to restrain petitioner from creating third-party interest including license or assignment of ‘Kirloskar’ trademarks – Trial Court granted injunction on 09.01.2025 – High Court stayed the injunction on 25.07.2025 permitting limited licensing to group companies – Later, by order dated 10.10.2025, High Court modified earlier order to prohibit even such licensing – Held: Prima facie, modified order expanded restraint without proper consideration of earlier licensing practices and despite pendency of appeal – Operation of 10.10.2025 order stayed [Paras 2–10].

Trademark Ownership – Difference between Assignment and Licensing – Petitioner argued that licensing does not amount to transfer of ownership and is distinguishable from assignment – Court noted there was no dispute over ownership of the mark and no prior adjudication on internal licensing history – Modified restraint seen as excessive at interlocutory stage [Paras 5–8].

Judicial Discretion – Modification of Interim Orders – Supreme Court observed that expanding the scope of an interim injunction during pendency of appeal and without full factual analysis was not warranted – Ordered interim stay on modified order [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Notice issued returnable on 04.11.2025 – Effect and operation of High Court order dated 10.10.2025 stayed – Parties allowed to exchange affidavits/written submissions in the meantime